Korwin: Disarm Annoying People – Enacted!

The Lamestream Media Told You:

Alan Korwin, visit his website GunLaws.com.

The New York Times, in its unending legacy of anti-gun-rights editorials (June 1, 2017), is now praising a California gun law as “particularly important because it gives standing to concerned family members, not just the police, to seek a court ruling against possession of a gun by a violent abuser.” Violent abuser* includes an “annoying person.”

Citing numbers from (unidentified) Michael Bloomberg’s “gun-control” group, the paper claims of 156 mass shootings from 2009 to 2016, clearly an awful lot, 54% were traced to domestic violence, also a lot apparently. Support for the numbers, as usual is not provided, though Everytown for Gun Something gets plugged by name.

Doing the math shows 22 total events claimed per year, or 1 per month (54%), statistically insignificant. All unintentional death is of course tragic, a point on which everyone agrees, and which the Times makes repeatedly, sometimes several times in single sentences.

The Uninvited Ombudsman Notes However That:

“We can end gun violence,” says Everytown for Gun Safety (Photo: Everytown)

Everything has a cost. For whatever expense goes into preventing the single monthly event the Times appears so concerned about, funds are unavailable to address, for example, the 100,000 annual deaths multiple sources continue to report occur from iatrogenic death — what the industry calls medical misadventure, or what the public calls doctor’s mistakes. (And don’t overlook nosocomial disabilities and death, maladies you catch in hospitals.)

The new California law would allow relatives and family members to disarm people by just asking a court to do so, without adequate representation for the person subject to the rights denial, in the hope the disarming would do more good than harm. Charging anyone for the 100,000 annual “mistake” deaths is virtually impossible. Californians are well known for their strained far-left anti-gun biases, where a good gun is no gun. Family members, under the new law, includes people you have dated, or ever stayed at your place.

California already enforces removal of Second Amendment rights for people charged, but not convicted of anything. If the Times was concerned with saving lives, and not disarming the public as critics claim their reporters stand in violation of their ethical oaths, it’s obvious the paper might have a different focus.

The Times accepts mountains of expensive drug company and other medical advertising. They take no advertising from the firearms industry. But I digress.

*What you must claim against people in California to have their guns and ammo confiscated (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 527.6): “…a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose…

{ 20 comments… add one }
  • Mikie July 6, 2017, 11:51 pm

    So, you jnow what I’d like to see?
    “in the news today, President Wishful Thinking, with the full backing of the house and senate, passed a new amendment to the constitution that requires all media outlets to publish daily, in a prominent position, a list with description of events of every person or persons that’s lives were saved that day due to the posession of a firearm or other weapon.”

    Can you imagine THAT??

  • Scott July 2, 2017, 10:47 pm

    I am sure there will not be much judicial processing of claims of annoying. It will be like Salem witch hunts all over again. A few will stack against one person saying they are annoying, only making the person more irate. No one will understand why the person is annoyed. But we will take their rights away based on their current attitude. Once taken away, how does one get them back, never?
    Any while your thinking about this. Think about the 3.7 million home invasions that happen each year. Approximately 1 million where somebody in the household is home. And 260,000 people are violently attacked during these invasions. How does that stack up on disarming people.

  • Mahatma Muhjesbude July 2, 2017, 12:32 pm

    Well ‘violent abusers’ would include any Police State cops who somehow abuse the fact of being in fear of their lives when confronting someone. (remember that THEY always initiate the actual confrontation, thereby actually putting Themselves in any potential jeopardy in the first place) And then shoot down unarmed distressed persons when they don’t ‘really’ have to because all they’d have to do to Escape ‘perceived’ imminent harm would be to hastily withdraw or use less than lethal equipment ?

    And ‘annoying people’ would include ALL cops at some point in their ‘jobs’? So let’s get started with disarming all the police. Otherwise a class action discrimination civil litigation might be in order because isn’t it still true that you can’t make laws favoring one element of society over another?

  • Mike Watkins June 30, 2017, 5:30 pm

    California is a place where the politicians and government are at war with reality, human nature, and common sense. You Californians who try to defend what your govt is doing to you need to get off your “medical” marijuana and see the light.

    • Mahatma Muhjesbude July 2, 2017, 12:35 pm

      How can you even expect sheeple of the ‘3rd kind in places like Kalifornia to be reasonably ‘normal’ when shitty one bedroom apartments in SanFransissyco are renting for an average of 3 grand a month?!

  • John Zalon June 30, 2017, 3:04 pm

    Kalifornia is the land of the fruits and the nuts. Nice place to visnit but I would not want to live there.

  • Jim Compton June 30, 2017, 9:34 am

    I can only hope that California falls in the ocean!

    • ~ Occams June 30, 2017, 10:34 am

      I have a surfboard.

      But I agree. 3rd generation here. Trust me; It isn’t ‘us’ – it’s everyone who came here, ruined the dream, and would have been followers of James Jones had they been young enough, trying to create their Utopia.

  • Dwane June 26, 2017, 6:04 am

    In the same vein as Kalifornia, Nepal has issued about 310 permits to climb Mt. Everest this year. It’s been reported that at least ten climbers have met their demise so far. The statistical death rate is FAR more than the world wide average yet permits are issued. I don’t see a cry and hue about death on the mountain in the paper and an organized protest to stop the permits being issued. Analysis? There’s money in guns.

  • Mark N. June 25, 2017, 3:06 am

    The California law in question has been in effect for over a year, and I haven’t heard any howls of outrage over its misuse. Second, the law, as a matter of law, complies with due process guarantees. First, the court issues a temporary order only on sworn affidavits (i.e., statement made under penalty of perjury), that contain the information required by the statute, and the court is permitted to have the witnesses testify live and under oath. This temporary order, which may be issued ex parte (without notice to the party to be restrained) only lasts two to three weeks. The “defendant” (for lack of a better word) must be given notice of the full hearing, a hearing at which he or she is entitled to appear, be represented by counsel, and to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses against him. If the court issues an order, it can last no more than one year.

    These orders are not available to jilted lovers and spouses. They have far more potent weapons available to them if they are willing to testify that they are victims of abuse. These DVTROs have been available for many years, and unlike the GVTRO, may last for years and may result in a prosecution that will result in a life time ban.

    • sfvshooter June 30, 2017, 10:45 am

      Thanks for the post. As an Angeleno (that’s someone who lives in Los Angeles btw) and a firearms enthusiast, I find it amusing how non-Californians think California is “cause” for everything that’s wrong with their lives. It’s as if California didn’t exist, their miserable lives would improve. We don’t give 2 sh*** about you so why don’t you get off our di***.

      • Ken June 30, 2017, 12:47 pm

        Went to the legal search and found that the ‘excerpt’ is only a small part of the meaning of the law. A little larger portion of that law gives a little more perspective in the application of said law.
        retrieved from: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?chapter=3.&part=2.&lawCode=CCP&title=7.
        “(3) “Harassment” is unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be that which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner.” (Amended by Stats. 2000, Ch. 688, Sec. 4. Effective January 1, 2001.)
        I think this is blown way out of proportion, and should be viewed in the same way all news needs to be viewed today, skeptically! I do see there could be potential for abuse depending on the judge, prosecutor, and ‘alleged’ victim, but the combination of all three would be rare.

        • Davron June 30, 2017, 1:19 pm

          I don’t see the definition of “annoy” in that document. The “knowing and willful conduct” and “annoys” part of the clause are what I think the author is pointing at the most. Also will the police willingly give you back your firearms and ammo at the end of the 2 to 3 weeks if the full hearing doesn’t uphold the finding or will you have to go through a lawsuit and thousands of dollars worth of expenses to get them back? Is this considered a criminal case such that you are provided legal representation if you can’t afford it? You are being stripped of your second amendment rights, so it should be given the same weight of law as a criminal case and give you the same safety mechanisms.

      • Bob Bacon July 2, 2017, 12:01 am

        It is true. If Cohenfornia didn’t exist, no bs would leak out of it.

        • Mahatma Muhjesbude July 2, 2017, 12:46 pm

          Meanwhile, Pelozi and other extreme Totalitarian anti-gun legislators feel ‘threatened’ by all the people who don’t love her anymore like they did under the Obama regime and now allow their body guards to Grenades in concealed inside the coat pouches next to the shoulder harnessed compact full auto AR-PDWs which came from the massive purchase for the DHS paid for, of course, by undisclosed tax payer’s dollars.

    • Mahatma Muhjesbude July 2, 2017, 1:01 pm

      Well, Mark, part of, if not the whole reason you don’t hear much about Tyranny is because the leftist media censors anything that makes their totalitarian agenda look bad. But these abuses are probably already common place in many areas. I know a cop, (not a friend) who brags about how many guns he takes away from ‘domestic disturbance’ cases where he ALWAYS makes an arrest. But nothing’s ever in his city news paper about that?

      You only hear a few egregious cases that can’t be ignored especially if they were filmed and go virul, like from big cities like Boston but there were over two thousand citizens killed by cops in questionable shootings over the last couple of years that you rarely hear about. Yet if you check into it, Cities like Chicago literally gave out multi-millions in ‘out of court’ settlements for these ‘violations’ of rights from bad abusive policing.

      You don’t have to ‘hear about’ it for it to be a serious problem. And that, of course, is the WAY they want it. But it’s our duty as citizens to keep a constant vigilance for our rights and freedoms. The Government, by its own demonstrations, simply cannot be trusted with our Liberty and Justice and should never, ever, get any ‘benefit of the doubt’.

  • IYearn4nARnCali June 25, 2017, 1:36 am

    I find the people who protect Shannon Watts, Michael Bloomberg, Nancy Pelosi, Kevin DeLeon, and all other anti-2A persons to be HIGHLY annoying, as they provide a level of security that the American people do not have access to. Their specific behavior is aimed at any person who wishes to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to chose a firearm that they can afford, with the specific features they want, in the caliber of their choosing, thus, it is time for the protectors of these people to have THEIR firearms stripped from them until such time as the anti’s learn that WE ALL have such rights, and more gun control hinders the free exercise of those rights unconstitutionally.

  • Barry Newman June 24, 2017, 4:43 am

    California is what the UN wants the entire country to look like.

    • IntelU June 30, 2017, 2:32 pm

      I agree..Oregon is starting to pull shit where they want more “loopholes” closed.They got the universal background checks passed at gun shows but, as you all know they just keep hammering away on more Cali type laws..stay tuned, these asshats
      (governor Brown,known as “Shit stain brown) will be getting out her executive crayon and add shit with no public input or discussion…sigh. These losers never quit.

    • Bob Bacon July 2, 2017, 12:02 am

      Abolish the jU N

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend